Scottish Independence - How will you vote? MkII

[saint dave]

Yes for me.

To have a country that looks after its own people better would do for me. That and a place where the poor aren't demonized.

Not a lot to ask really.

[Mr Bairn]

I've met some N Irish people that have been openly angry towards us for wanting independence. f**k them I say.

Conversely, a fairly good mate of mine who moved over from NI just a few months back thinks it's pretty crazy that we don't all want independence.

In context, this guy is a Sinn Fein supporter who has a lot of animosity for the English, it was one time I happened to mention Scotland in the pub and he said that Scotland and Ireland are more or less carbon copies of one another and it's only the English he doesn't like.

[~~~]

I've met some N Irish people that have been openly angry towards us for wanting independence. f**k them I say.

That's more to do with N.irish politics, if Scotland votes Yes it would be an embarrassment for NI unionist parties

They want us to vote No, not because they believe it's for the benefit of Scotland, only because it allows them to show face

[renton]

http://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2013/12/02/stephen-tierney-the-scottish-constitution-after-independence/

[Mr Bairn]

You said on the other thread that the Spanish were going to veto us. If you weren't sure of that why did you say it?

I was trolling.

[Jamaldo]

I was trolling.

[wingsoverperthshire]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NuX_NJwu6L4

Funny video this if you haven't seen, released tonight.

[Gordon EF]

Was there specific guidleines or laws concerning EU countries subsuming non-EU countries or territories, at the time?

?

[~~~]

?

Good luck getting an answer, I'm just curious if Germany had to reapply either from without or outside the EU when the wall came down

[xbl]

?

Keep at him as long as it takes to get an answer!

[H_B]

 

?

Not that im aware of. Im not sure what your point is here.

Germany inherited all of the FRG s memberships.

What this has to do with secession i have no idea.

[Swampy]

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with the substance here but in the case of Germany/West Germany, it's not so much that Germany inherited the FRG's memberships. It's rather that Germany is West Germany under the German constitution (aka Grundgesetz, aka Basic Law.) There was an article in the Grundgesetz that allowed for the creation of a unified state: this wasn't used. Instead West Germany absorbed the former East German states and renamed itself. This wasn't a merger: it was an absorption. There was nothing for 'Germany' to inherit because Germany is a rebranded West Germany.

And I did this at Glasgow Uni so you know it's right.

edit: sorry, I see now that this was covered. So basically it's totally irrelevant as to what will become of Scotland, which we know anyway, i.e. Scotland will join the EU from the inside.

Edited December 3, 2013 by Swampy

[Swampy]

Kevin McKenna's latest Guardian article is extremely critical of Better Together http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/30/better-together-scottish-independence-paper

One paragraph stood out:

"There are many reasons why Better Together would never dare to produce its own white paper entitled "Britain's Future". For how could any Scottish Labour supporter subscribe to a document that would talk of penalising the poor; cutting the taxes of the rich; allowing our defence and intelligence policies to resemble those of Texas and re-introducing a light touch for bankers? Not to mention leaving Europe and telling immigrants to go home."

Excellent article and it makes you wonder precisely what BT are fighting for.

[H_B]

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with the substance here but in the case of Germany/West Germany, it's not so much that Germany inherited the FRG's memberships. It's rather that Germany is West Germany under the German constitution (aka Grundgesetz, aka Basic Law.) There was an article in the Grundgesetz that allowed for the creation of a unified state: this wasn't used. Instead West Germany absorbed the former East German states and renamed itself. This wasn't a merger: it was an absorption. There was nothing for 'Germany' to inherit because Germany is a rebranded West Germany.

 

And I did this at Glasgow Uni so you know it's right.

 

edit: sorry, I see now that this was covered. So basically it's totally irrelevant as to what will become of Scotland, which we know anyway, i.e. Scotland will join the EU from the inside.

Thats right. They had two options to consider and chose the easier route in a lot of ways.

If the former East Germans decided unification was nt working for them and decided to secede the Gordon EF tit might be onto something.

Of course what would happen then is Germany would continue in membership and 'New DDR' would apply as a new member.

Im glad people are starting to grasp this.

[throbber]

I have been on the fence a few times, would always say i wasn't sure rather than saying no though. Most people around me are yes sayers so that contributes but my main issue is the south of England running our country. The tories don't represent us IMO, the so called war on terror wasn't in Scotlands name and if we disembark we have less chance of being the victims of a terror attack, most the real tension between muslim and Brits seems to be in the south of England and in terms of my identity i am Scottish and the union means nothing to me. Few debatable points but no one has convinced me to vote no yet so i am happy with my reasoning. I won't be too devastated if we don't get it mind you

[the jambo-rocker]

Curious point about noticing the abstaining option, so to get the daft question out of the way. I assume that it has to be 50% of the vote on the day has to be YES regardless, and the abstention effectively counts as a NO vote?

[H_B]

Curious point about noticing the abstaining option, so to get the daft question out of the way. I assume that it has to be 50% of the vote on the day has to be YES regardless, and the abstention effectively counts as a NO vote?

Not sure what you mean really.

Both Yes and No need 50% plus 1 to 'win'. People who dont vote dont count.

[ArabianKnight]

Not sure what you mean really.

Both Yes and No need 50% plus 1 to 'win'. People who dont vote dont count.

He would be referring to '79 referendum.

.. But you knew that didn't you.

[the jambo-rocker]

Not sure what you mean really.

Both Yes and No need 50% plus 1 to 'win'. People who dont vote dont count.

He would be referring to '79 referendum.

.. But you knew that didn't you.

Not quite I am aware that anyone that didn't vote technically became a NO vote anyway in the 79' referendum. But that I was just wondering if the abstaining would have had a similar impact to people that didn't vote back then (counting as a NO vote), or if was just 50% + 1 of the people that voted YES and NO.

[xbl]

Not quite I am aware that anyone that didn't vote technically became a NO vote anyway in the 79' referendum. But that I was just wondering if the abstaining would have had a similar impact to people that didn't vote back then (counting as a NO vote), or if was just 50% + 1 of the people that voted YES and NO.

Im not 100% what you mean, but there is no 50% of the population requirement, so abstaining doesn't have the same impact. If anything, a lower turnout is better for Yes, as it is likely to be soft No voters that won't bother to vote.